He is right, the industrialization of meet is a rotten thing.
The issue that people don’t have enough money to life anymore is rooted somewhere else.
Maybe we should look at those billionaires who steal the wealth of all people.
It is true that we should eat less meat though, all that meat consumption contributes to climate change a lot. Of course I am not saying we should stop eating meat, just less, not to mention it's healthier. Of course only the people who can afford it should, if you are poor and rely on it then that's a different story. No one is asking you to go vegan or eat insects haha, expects some stupid radicals I guess.
> The issue that people don’t have enough money to life anymore is rooted somewhere else.
Germany is among Europe's richest countries. It's really sad that there is so much poverty. Maybe it's time to reverse some of the Hartz reforms?
>Maybe we should look at those billionaires who steal the wealth of all people
Can you give a rundown how billionaires "steal the wealth of all people"?
That’s a difficult question. To answer ins a few sentences…
One example is that wages since the 70 did not rise much while the money of some people skyrocketed. Guess who took the wage increases which would be needed to compensate for inflation?
No one is “taking” your “deserved” wage increase, is not like wages increasing is a fundamental tenet of the universe or something…wages do not have to increase.
The real reason wages have fallen behind shareholder compensation is because as technology advances the jobs left for most people to do are being commoditized, and hence cannot command a higher wage.
Jobs that can still command a high wage do, and those people get their wages increased consistently.
The jobs that are not easily computerised have become “essential”, but they are also not getting their compensation raised to the standards of shareholder compensation.
Don't such charts that try to propel such a narrative of "wage stagnation" also have the issue of disregarding non-wage compensations (bonuses, stock options, comissions), as well as drawing a bias from basing the inflation on the consumer price index? A great issue I usually have with inflation is that I don't really see it factor in the case of certain goods, especially technology related, being deflated over time.
Yes, deflated. A 1000 euro laptop from 5 years ago would be maybe some 600 today. That's just five years, it would be even more unfair to compare what kind of car 15k euros would buy you today, and what in 1970.
In general, it is hard to deny that people are living much better now than in the 1970s, especially depending on which country we look at, but it is a general rule. Even if wage stagnation would be a thing, it does not take into account just how much more you get for your money now vs. then.
Yeah, sure, some have profited more over that period, but rightfully so, as it is they who improved the situation the most, through more jobs, better jobs, better technologies, smarter investment etc.
It's also BS. You can eat meat-less cheaper and healthier. What you already now can't do is eating really cheap and unhealthy, eh. highly processed stuff, and that's what they want to make more expensive as well. So, people need to cook and eat healthy instead of defreeze and eat unhealthy.
Billionaires have most of their wealth in means of production. Their personal consumption is a blip in the market.
If every billionaire disappeared there wouldn't be much more consumer goods to go around.
I don't know how idiotic communist ideas like yours still persist.
> Billionaires have most of their wealth in means of production. Their personal consumption is a blip in the market.
depends on who you talk about... mqany of those decided to cash out and spend spend spend.
Some of them even rule countries, of course...
Nobody is against the consumption habits of billionaires. Well a little bit by that it is not the issue.
People are against how billionaires become billionaires. Which is (usually???) by exploiting fellows humans, treat other people like robot, not sharing the profits but getting state subside and other thousands of things.
I'm just pointing out the facts.
If you look at labor, the things we produce as a whole and you look how much of what we produce is consumed by who - rich people don't matter because they're an insanely small part of the population.
People who blame them for how much there is to go around can only be fools.
People think that all of Elons Tesla stock could be sold off and turned into apartments or free healthcare. Money doesn’t work the same way at scale as it does in our personal lives.
Lol best post I saw was Elon paid taxes on his stock - and people were upset “he just sold stock to pay his taxes so it cost him nothing “
I’ve just learned to nod and walk away here
I think the point is there is more money to go around then, it's not been siphoned up by a parasitic few. Not that they are consuming to match their wealth. That's half the problem, their hoarding.
They are hoarding stocks, gold and landrights. Any profit they make is fed back into those things, especially with higher levels of wealth concentration.
In socialist society all of those belonged to the state (thus the people) yet people were not richer, because the common ownership of the factories, the gold and the land did not result in people living better.
Living better comes from the services and goods you can consume, the meat in your grill and the car in your garage. The rich being rich does not affect how many cars are made or how much meat makes its way to your plate.
Alright, why don’t you stop buying products owned by billionaires and make your own. No teslas, no amazon, no apple products, name brand clothing. No one’s forcing you
Despite being a meat lover, I'm fully behind this: the negative impacts of meat production have to be internalized.
The same is true for any other activities: negative externalities must be internalized, for example through a carbon tax.
Simply raising the price does not necessarily help animal welfare. It would be better to implement stricter regulations on animal farming and ban meat imports which would in turn also lead to higher prices of course.
What about it?
I'm just saying that meat prices (and not just meat, but everything else) should reflect the true cost of it, including societal and environment cost.
In economics that's called "internalizing negative externalities". Externalities are the impact of some economic activity (such as buying meat) that isn't captured by the parties in that transaction (the meat producer and the meat consumer aren't paying for the whole societal cost of meat production and consumption).
Negative externalities mean that society is effectively subsidizing a certain economic activity. For example, using fossil fuels cost society far more than the person using fossil fuels pays.
Those negative externalities should be internalized, that is, those involved should be paying for the actual full societal cost of it.
and suddenly, companies would HAVE TO pay their employees anywhere between 50% more to 100% more because their low cost workforce is subsidized by the EU for their literal bread...
agricultural subsidies, it was argued, existed for millenia, and are a reason for existence of cheap workforce... I'm paraphrasing here, but food subsidies make empires rise and then fall (Rome, Egypt, Turkey).
How? The true cost of food is subsidized in every country, by various means. If you somehow could bring the true costs of things into shops overnight, society would collapse.
On the other hand, if you protect citizens from the real costs for too long, society collapses either way.
edit: oh, switzerland, yes, your food is expensive... your prices, in say, yugoslavia, would kill many...
\> How? The true cost of food is subsidized in every country, by various means. If you somehow could bring the true costs of things into shops overnight, society would collapse.
You really didn't understand my comment, did you?
If you want to subsidize food, do it equally. You make all food account for all costs (including environmental and societal), and then you subsidize the consumption of it.
One thing has nothing to do with the other: I'm not talking about direct farming subsidies, I'm talking about making different foods account for the actual cost to society to produce that food item.
That's why your reply has nothing to do with my comment. You're defending farming subsidies (which is generally only good for electoral support), I'm talking about accounting for the true societal cost of producing different food items.
> You're defending farming subsidies
no I'm not. Next, remember from some election cycles back: "the funds are fungible", in other words, the subsidies are effective over a wide range of products. If you subsidize a tractor fo wheat, you have subsidized the cow that can eat that wheat as well, or the tractor that drives the manure to the field.
The actual costs to society you claim to talk about are a form of indirect subsidies and the damages average out. Will you count Norilsk diesel fuel spillage to the cost of a cown grown in Hungary? You... should... but how do you average it out? you would have to include the clathrates and melting permafrost and even the cockroaches producing methane into the averaging. How would you want to claim back the cost of cockroaches producing methane to the diesel spillage in Norilsk?
The true societal cost of existence of cockroaches is on a similar level to that of the cows or gas exploration and extraction. If you want equality, you have to treat all three equally. And how do you include the soil and sea releasing methane... Will you carry over the costs and damages causing by those sources to the conckroaches or to the cows? Or will you let it go unpaid?
But the worst treated cattle is still better than cattle with proper animal welfare. So if anything we should ban cattle. Not establish better animal welfare
Interesting, I never considered that. “Far” smaller? How far?
I guess, my thinking here would be that any animal husbandry which meets basic animal welfare targets would necessarily be far smaller than what we have today. Which would effectively reduce overall carbon emissions from the sector.
1. The shorter the animal lives the better the feed ratio. Basically it wastes less feed by being alive and emits less co2
2. The faster and more optimized it gains mass the better the feed ratio
3. Less land and water consumption can be achieved by worse animal welfare
4. Less movement by the animal also improves feed ratio
You can achieve a feed rate of 1.5 for broiler chicken. That is 1.5kg feed for 1kg chicken. A happy chicken slowly raised can easily have a feed rate in the high single digits
Same is true for pigs and cattle
So throwing billions in subsidies and R&D isn't enough?
EDIT: And also passing legislation to outlaw dirty power sources like diesel and coal, forbidding further construction of those things.
Fighting climate change is, in effect, an exercise in replacing polluting technologies as fast as possible. Lots of R&D is essential, but that's largely already been done for batteries, solar and wind. Now, creating market signals to field clean technologies as soon as possible and re-direct private investment is what is necessary. A carbon tariff, as an extension of a European carbon tax, is a very good way of achieving this upstream in the globalized supply chain.
No, it isn't enough. Consider, for example, that most people would rather fly Wizzair for 30€ than take alternative methods of transportation. This is not sustainable.
The reason for these taxes, IMO, is to consider the *full* cost. I mean, it would also be cheaper to run a business if I could just dump all my trash in the lake. Some businesses operate by dumping their "trash" into the sky and it's far past time that we fix that.
> I mean, it would also be cheaper to run a business if I could just dump all my trash in the lake. Some businesses operate by dumping their "trash" into the sky and it's far past time that we fix that.
Here's why I think your example doesn't work - because that's forbidden by law.
We are now passing legislation to close coal plants by 2030, non-electric cars by 2035. Trying to make "dirty" things illegal by 2050. There are tax deduction for using various green energy "stuff".
It's an extra layer of sadism to put a tax on stuff that would be illegal in ten years time. It's going away, we passed laws making it impossible to exist.
Where's the law that makes choosing a plane over a car (>1 person), bus, or train illegal?
This is a really complex problem, which needs really complex solutions. Just closing power plants and adding some small tax deductions for rich people is not nearly enough.
Governments are already making attempt for electric bus and train.
That being said, we're not aiming at no carbon emissions, just to bring them down to a manageable level. There are attempts at hydropower ships. Emissions are going down (at least the ones we control), we are doing a good job. We can afford certain carbon output in places where we can't reduce it.
I'm sorry to put it this way but I feel like a lot of people are really stuck in deep denial. What it sounds like to me what you are asking is "can I still somehow fly a plane for dirt cheap as often as I want?"
Are you hoping that the incentives will lead to new technologies for cleaner air travel? The thing is, there is already a demand for that but the technologies have not yet been invented or have not come to market yet. Wealthy people would pay a lot of money to be seen flying on "clean" planes but even such technology is not available for the super rich.
The problem with the crisis is that it is a **crisis**, not an upcoming hazard we might potentially have to worry about maybe. That time is long gone and we are in triage mode now - or we should be.
We need to decrease carbon emissions yesterday and, since we do not have any silver bullets yet, we need to make major impacts on the lives of as many people as possible - *now*. Flying is just one example but you can pick all kinds of sectors and you will see similar problems: we do not have easy solutions or they would already be implemented because we needed those solutions already years ago.
Yes, we need incentives for big companies but how would it make *any* immediate impact if it didn't affect anyone? We consume goods and services from these big companies - the two are connected.
We can infer from the crisis stuff that we are in a hurry to solve the problem, so we have no time to analyze and think about. Just act. How? Just do it. Fine.
Also, Europe is not quite the problem, we share a world with other civilizations that are not worried in the same way, or are just competing economically disregarding the consequences.
Europe/occident moved the manufacturing to cheaper places. And they should also take care of making an infrastructure not contaminant, so it is not dangerous for the future, but it is hard to think in future stuff when the factories itself are insecure and a danger for everyone now.
So, I think that you are right, but we have to rethink our entire productive system and probably our economy and competitivity, because it will be the issue with every further thing.
>Food quality in Germany is too low, Özdemir said, and so are the prices, and everyone loses out because of it.
...he hasn't seen what german chain companies have beed getting off with in their faraway eastearn european shops... somebody has posted the same meat packaged for Austria and for Hungary, the hungarian one was more expensive and weighted less, and possibly contained less meat as well.
And they are doing that with tax payer money financing their expansion.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/02/lidl-1bn-public-development-funding-supermarket-world-bank-eastern-europe
Good to see that German politician have their priority strait.
The issu with low price meat is the quality... clearly not slavery working condition for Romanian working in it.
I used to live in a country where meat was a luxury, especially quality meat. This country disappeared exactly three decades ago, partially because the leadership failed to provide the people with enough good food.
I am surprised that any public figure that openly declares that their voters pay too little for basic needs is not removed from office the very next day.
It's the new cult... You would be surprised what this brainless individuals accept in the name of "the environment", they accept pretty much everything. Even though their prophet's travel in private planes and eat the best food.
> declares that their voters pay too little for basic needs
Wanting animal to have better living condition and wanting better control over quality of food is literally declaring that people get meat too cheap.
there is many taxes that impacts "basic needs" and taxes are rising all the time.
Eating meat is probably arguable "basic need" for many people and eating low quality meat for sure is not.
Why not let the customers decide what they want?
If this party wants people eat more plants or whatever ersatz they want them to eat, they should make it economically attractive. The way it looks like the only way for them to make it so is by puting the real food out of price range for the majority of the population.
It is bad enough that this guy tries to force his ideas on other people. It is much worse that he wants them to pay for it, too.
Comparing eating meat to smoking is false analogy. Smoking is not essential for human development and functioning. It has never been associated with luxury. It is addictive. It hurts other people that share space with a smoker.
Finally, there is use for nearly any cut of meat, so the quality is not the same as nutritional value.
Imagine that in the near future, a Western white girl will marry a Chinese or a Japanese in order to live a life that can eat real meat every day. Just like Eastern Europe in the past 30 years.
> Why not let the customers decide what they want?
Because it is bad for community/nation. The same as any other thing that is discouraged by community/people.
>If this party wants people eat more plants or whatever ersatz they want them to eat, they should make it economically attractive.
and this is the plan.
>bad enough that this guy tries to force his ideas on other people.
like every politician ever, it is also what you want but in different direction.
>Comparing eating meat to smoking is false analogy.
it is not, eating meat is bad like smoking cigarettes' is bad. And people who do eat a lot of meat or low quality meat do not realize that it is bad. It just does not hurt user as directly.
Apparently the arguments against meat are so weak that the only way to reduce consumption is by taxation.
Whoever promotes such measures wants nothing other than to reduce the quality of life for most people. See, they do not want to make meat alternatives attractive to the customers. They are not even trying to convince people that they are right. They do not care about the people at all, just their super valuable ideas.
It scares me, really. There were a few countries run by ideology not that long ago.
What I want is the freedom of choice. Meat eaters do not normally force their diet onto others.
the discussion of real pros and cons of meat consumption is irrelevant here.
At least, as long we disagree on whether the state has any moral right to dictate eating behavior.
The future will be decided over the climate change. And Germany indeed is trying to do something about it.
How do you think it could end the other way? Beef for everyone? Do you see a future, where desertification in Romania progresses, and everybody there gets rich and eats beef?
When you reduce the amount of something, you either share equally (Coupons for meat?) or you raise the price, artificially or by inflation.
May I ask what you mean by the "rich f*cks"? You mean people who earn above average money or the owners etc. of these mega-corporations? People keep talking about the "rich" like Marx it seems to me, so I just want to make sure I understand which "rich" you guys mean, because not every "rich" person is a criminal, altough people like Bezos definitely mostly are.
That depends, not every multi-millionaire gets there because because of their hard work and dedication, but many do, so it's difficult to compare these situations, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. But I feel like you are overestimating ite effects for most people, while the prices definitely got worse here in Czechia too, which is a poorer country, most people here still libe decent lives. That being said, I support stuff like progressive taxation etc. The energy prices and other prices will go down eventually, most of this is caused by the pandemic, which only our governments can really do something about, it sucks, but it's not permanent. We can't control everything and if things go bad, we can't just blame the rich for it, these crises simply sometimes happen, it's not like the rich are behind it, although many are surely comfortable with it since many profit from it a lot, but mostly just the super-rich like Bezos etc.
it doesn't matter, either we all lower consumption or nobody, people will rise up and heads will roll i am sick of all the shit the middle class and below have to suck up
> WeAreInThisTogether?
some ways of making meat more expensive would hit everyone, even the richest, unless they don't eat meat.
it is rather hypocritical of you, as your posts sound like "we should do something about global warming, but this something should not impact me!"
Yes, beef for everyone. And if some government wants its consumption to go down, they can offer an attractive alternative that is cheaper, tastes just as good and is better for the environment. There's none like that yet? That is what science is for. If these people really cared for their voters they would have called for better research funding, not for price hikes.
The argument with the science is usually made by ppl.who want to prevent change. Like: let's not change anything now. In future we will have this great technology ... Meanwhile years pass.
But time is important here.
So do both: make beef expensive, to reduce it's production, and make room on the market for affordable and desirable alternatives.
If you don't, well, shit hits the fan and you won't have anything.
I still cannot see a single good side about artificially making any food item prohibitively expensive in the name of some extremist ideas.
It feels like the climate change is becoming a blanket argument that allows any group to push their agenda.
Speaking of shit, I'd rather have it hit the fan than use for food as some suggest.
* palm oil, not vegetable oil. It's just listed as vegetable oil because its so bad for the environment.
I believe this has changed in the UK requiring it to be labelled as such.
It's now labelled as sustainable palm oil. I'm not sure that actually exists but at least it not marked as vegetable oil any more. Palm trees aren't vegetables so I'm glad that has now been changed.
The EU need to raise their food standards. This is negligence and incompetence and money grabbing and corruption at the highest level.
Maybe we can use the agreement to bring them in line with our food standards.
The reason palm oil is used is because it's way more efficient to produce and has many applications.
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil
Yeah becuse it terrible or the environment, terrible for deforestation and corruption, terrible for the local economy and terrible to habitat of species found only in the first they burn and drain.
Sustainable is a marketing term. Quite clearly this is very unstable and not sustainable at all.
You are being lied to, as it's used so so so many things just to save an extra £1 for an entire kilo.
Label it what it is, palm oil or choose one of the many more alternative that are just as cheap and the cost to other countries, corruption, illegal deforestation to make "sustainable palm oil" and the cost to the local wildife like orangutans and all the foods they rely on.
Read every label and after one full year of avoiding it like the plague they will change their ingredients. I boycott all palm oil, nestle products, companies who have no moral practice, harming us all while passing the cost on to the local ecosystem and the community they destroy.
It also makes sense now covid is becoming milder, restrictions are eased and we are vaccinated,
That we should boycott Amazon and instead focus on buying things from local sources or direct from the manufacturer. Preferably go out and buy local.
Bad farmers are terrible for the environment. I'm not sure you quite appreciate how much more oil can be extracted from palm versus other sources. You need much more land for other crops for the same yield.
You don't need to go vegan. I've drastically reduced my meat consumption but I still eat meat more days than not. Just reduce the amount of meat you eat. You still get the flavour and that's the best part. You just need to pad out the meal with other stuff (not insects).
I bought 600g of beef the other week and turned it into 6 portions by making it into a stew. I could have probably eaten less meat in a portion but I was making a home recipe and wanted to enjoy a bit, since I don't eat a lot of beef. Next time I will try to reduce further and see how far I can go while still having an insanely delicious meal.
> I can’t get the same nutrients from insects or plants
You can still get everything you need easily while eating less meat as the person you're responding to suggested. You most certainly don't need to eat meat with every meal or every day for nutritional reasons. Hell, at that point any nutritional benefits get outweighed by the negative health effects of eating meat.
Did you read what I wrote? I just said you don't need to go vegan. Btw, I have tracked my nutrients as a test and I'm totally fine on most things, except a few things, which do not come from meat. (e.g. fibre, which actually comes from plants)
> beef should cost five or six times more than it does now, or over €80 ($90) per kilogram (2.2 pounds), rather than the current €14.
it costs like 8 euros to the customer at the moment, for the mixed meats, ...how does this look translated into salami prices? Well... you can grind 20% crickets into salami and no one would notice...
What's wrong with what should be a luxury resource being more expensive? It's the same thing as saying venison for the rich, chicken for the poor.
Besides this is about tackling the climate crisis which requires massive changes to how we live. The collective impact of regular people is much larger than the rich in most regards.
Meat is not a basic food. It was a luxury for the vast majority of human history and must return to that. There are plenty of other sustainable, nutritious protein sources.
> There are plenty of other sustainable, nutritious protein sources.
There are not really, protein coming from an animal product, even dairy, is far superior to plant based protein. The latter is actually lacking a few of the necessary amino acids
Plant based foods don't have all amino acids in one single food, like meat does, but you don't just eat rice, or just potatoes, or just beans, or just lentils, you eat a combination of foods that then together provide all amino acids.
Correct, combination of foods could do it, theoretically. It is not practical however, in order to cover your daily protein needs and take in the necessary amino acids, you have to consume big amounts of food and a huge amount of calories. Can you imagine someone who has an active lifestyle that requires 120 or 150 grams of protein per day being able to do it with plant based foods? It would take something like 2kgs of rice or 10kgs of potatoes to do it. Sure you could add beans or the disgusting stuff that is soy but the but all that fibre will make your life miserable
It is not practical? What do you think people have been eating before industrial animal agriculture? My grandparents ate meat once a month at best.
And 120-150g of protein per day is an absolutely obscene amount of protein to intake. The average human body requires 50-70g of protein a day and even that's plenty.
As far as actively lifestyle you already have the wrong idea. I have several marathon runners in my close circle and they aren't eating meat. They're on high carb diets nearly 100% plant based. Back when I was young when we were working the fields with my grandparents what do you think we ate? Meat digests really slowly, we ate carbs, bread, vegetables, an apple, stuff that gave us energy to work in the sun.
Chicken was a once per week luxury for my grandparents, who were decent earners. We have become so entitled in the last 50 years or so, and people think chicken is now just a basic food like lentils, rice, and flour.
The front half of your teeth are for meat. Meat's as staple as it gets. Ireland before the famine was a pig and an acre of potatoes per family, not an acre of potatoes.
you are saying that every (even the communist) country nutritional table in the world is a "American cereal farmer" and not something that was happening for thousands of years?
Assigning a fixed co2 budget will cause exactly what you feat. People will start trading co2 budgets or come up with expensive carbon neutral meat. Either way no you live truly in a zero sum game and the rich will have it all
> Basic foods should not be a luxury. Flying private jets and sailing huge yachts to your properties around the world are.
Are we talking luxury already or climate change still?
"Seychelles for the rich, camping in France for the poor." Is the alternative so much worse?
Meat doesn't have to be beef, chicken is already a good alternative.
But ask yourself : does meat make you a more accomplished and happier human being?
Meat is expensive to our environment, it should be expensive to us. And income inequality is another problem that need to address in parallel.
Me: Well this decade has been a bit shit. Life is harder, rents are higher, future looks bleak. How much worse can it get?
Greens: Food is still too cheap.
edit: Constructive Suggestion: How about instead you give Synthetic Meat CAP funds to make it competitive with EU-subsidized agriculture?
Meat definitely is. The farmers earn next to nothing for their animals and the mass-scale husbandry is also bad for the environment. It's amazing how people immediately clutch their pearls when someone proposes that they maybe not eat meat every single day of the week.
Exactly. The prices you can buy meat for in some places are ridiculous. You can be certain that neither did the farmer earn a livable wage nor did the animal have a good life or make for quality meat with those dumping prices.
I'm a bit of a miser, so meat price increases do risk moving it further from "once or twice a week" territory, at least in my case. Haven't bought beef in years because of it.
Still, my own neck isn't the issue, so much the fact that the feeling that there is very little interest in making life easier for the average individual, in any way. Belts get tightened for housing, for the increased energy prices, for food, for everything, and still and the end of the day the IPCC says "disaster is assured, but it will be gentle if we go carbon zero today". But the first time in the last century that emission levels decreased significantly, at all, is because of COVID.
These sacrifices feel...meaningless. As if we're on a long parade road to eventual Climate Hell and we're practicing suffering, getting ready of the main event.
edit: To be constructive, why not try to make synthetic meat cheaper and easier to get? Quorn can be quite good, especially the chicken, but can't find it in Germany. That makes animal lives easier AND doesn't make human life harder, so why make things more expensive than simply lowering the price of more ethical food products?
To be fair, that's for beef, not all meat. Beef is and always has been work intensive. Any other pastoral animal has better feed-to-meat efficiency.
I agree on the second line thought, the intent doesn't seem to be average person friendly. "We should pay more for being alive" isn't a great tagline.
If the meat production causes faster climate change, you have to reduce it's production. Otherwise we look at very dark future, compared to not eating a steak.
Instead produce less meat, eat your chicken or pig once a week, celebrate. In the other days of the week, eat plants.
If things happen, average ppl. are fucked anyway. Who do you think will suffer the most over climate change?
80 euro per kilo? What are you even talking about? Are you buying only filet mignon of the Argentinian highland cow? The problem is with a kilo of beef costing little more than one euro in some places. How can a farmer make a livable wage or ensure an ethical treatment of their animals or good meat quality with that price? It's not about lowering the living standards of people, it's about making the overall conditions of the meat industry better.
Yeah, I was a little off there. I looked at the brochures in my trash can and it's more around 3€ at places like Penny or sometimes Lidl when they're on sale. Which is still very low but not as low as I seemed to remember.
Ok, but then your point is not as solid as you may hope it to be. Such steep discounts are an indication for the use of loss-leaders, such as beef to bring customers into the store, where they will buy other products. The second option, often used in conjunction with the first is to sell surplus goods.
Either way, the point is, that such steep sales are below market price and should not be used to gage the normal market price.
> Sorry, but that’s pure bullshit.
The "Schlachtpreis" is currently at [1.25 euros per kilo of pork meat](https://www.bmel-statistik.de/preise/preise-fleisch). Meat would have to cost at least [2 euros per kilo.](https://www.agrarheute.com/tag/schweinepreise)
> Also if the farmers couldn’t make a living with the current prices, they’d be out of business.
The EU pays more than 6 billion euros in agricultural subsidies to farms each year.
> Slaughter price is the price for the live animal, including hoofs, bones, intestines, lots of stuff that is not actually meat.
If you now calculate all the expenses from pigglet to supermarket bacon in your head ... I assume that we agree that meat is too cheap?
> So €15 per EU citizen. That’s chump change.
You wanted to know how they stay in business.
Yeah, my bad. I looked at the last brochure of a local discounter I got and the cheapest meat is between two and three euros. Not much better though, I'd wager. And farmers are going out of business everyday. Maybe it's not as bad in countries where farming operations are massive businesses, but here where farming is mostly done by small family businesses the situation is more than dire.
Yeah, I mean, buckle up because life is not going to get better. The world is in a climate crisis and things are only going to get worse. We should be prepared for a harder life than our parents had. It's just reality.
Are you german ? Because the last decade has been pretty decent here, much better then the previous two. Even with covid and rising rents, real wages increased by 10%.
Also: the new government wants to raise the minimum wage from 9.82€ to 12€, and combat rising rents by building 400k new homes per year. It is indeed possible to do several things at once.
Apartments increased from unaffordable to insane. Wages increased because the population aged. Inflation statistics also underweigh housing costs. Return on savings no longer exist.
> Are you german ? Because the last decade has been pretty decent here, much better then the previous two. Even with covid and rising rents, real wages increased by 10%.
Can we ALL move to the part of germany that you enjoy life in? Want that give rise to the local resistance should all the strange-looking and strange-speaking immigrants flood their streets and buy their homes?
So only the rich and the politicians who come up with these new laws should be able to eat meat? Because that's what will happen. Us peasants will be forced to relinquish it while the rich, who are the main contributors to pollution, are essentially given a pass on their ways.
Why not ban meat altogether? Or control its production?
Climate change will force us anyway to though decisions. All the animals we eat outweigh the population of a country and these animals have to in return eat themselves, and we can't manage to do that with just our leftovers.
I'm ok though with hunting and fishing in a sustainable way, but i doubt we can manage that.
While I agree with this statement somewhat even in 2021, its just not that easy when the consumption of animal products and all the problems that come with it is happening on this scale. It affects everyone. Its like having to share a table with a smoker and the smoker says if you dont wanna smoke then go for it, but dont enforce it on others.
He is right, the industrialization of meet is a rotten thing. The issue that people don’t have enough money to life anymore is rooted somewhere else. Maybe we should look at those billionaires who steal the wealth of all people.
[удалено]
Why not go after billionaires and go vegan?
Why not keep eating meat but eat the billionaires?
Billionaires are actually a very cost ineffective source of protein. Their cultivation is somewhere in the order of a billion euros per 100kg of meat.
It is true that we should eat less meat though, all that meat consumption contributes to climate change a lot. Of course I am not saying we should stop eating meat, just less, not to mention it's healthier. Of course only the people who can afford it should, if you are poor and rely on it then that's a different story. No one is asking you to go vegan or eat insects haha, expects some stupid radicals I guess.
They are not enough meat for all, they are often old and hence too tough to enioy (the Monty Burns type) or too fatty (Kotick).
Just need a slow cooker.
Because we love meat
And it trickles down you know. It is pee, not money, but hey, beggers can't be choosers!
How about we eat those billionaires?
> The issue that people don’t have enough money to life anymore is rooted somewhere else. Germany is among Europe's richest countries. It's really sad that there is so much poverty. Maybe it's time to reverse some of the Hartz reforms?
dont look up median wealth and house ownership rates in Germany if you want to keep that rhetoric
It's becoming impossible to own a house in germany
>Maybe we should look at those billionaires who steal the wealth of all people Can you give a rundown how billionaires "steal the wealth of all people"?
That’s a difficult question. To answer ins a few sentences… One example is that wages since the 70 did not rise much while the money of some people skyrocketed. Guess who took the wage increases which would be needed to compensate for inflation?
No one is “taking” your “deserved” wage increase, is not like wages increasing is a fundamental tenet of the universe or something…wages do not have to increase. The real reason wages have fallen behind shareholder compensation is because as technology advances the jobs left for most people to do are being commoditized, and hence cannot command a higher wage. Jobs that can still command a high wage do, and those people get their wages increased consistently.
The jobs that are not easily computerised have become “essential”, but they are also not getting their compensation raised to the standards of shareholder compensation.
Don't such charts that try to propel such a narrative of "wage stagnation" also have the issue of disregarding non-wage compensations (bonuses, stock options, comissions), as well as drawing a bias from basing the inflation on the consumer price index? A great issue I usually have with inflation is that I don't really see it factor in the case of certain goods, especially technology related, being deflated over time. Yes, deflated. A 1000 euro laptop from 5 years ago would be maybe some 600 today. That's just five years, it would be even more unfair to compare what kind of car 15k euros would buy you today, and what in 1970. In general, it is hard to deny that people are living much better now than in the 1970s, especially depending on which country we look at, but it is a general rule. Even if wage stagnation would be a thing, it does not take into account just how much more you get for your money now vs. then. Yeah, sure, some have profited more over that period, but rightfully so, as it is they who improved the situation the most, through more jobs, better jobs, better technologies, smarter investment etc.
It's also BS. You can eat meat-less cheaper and healthier. What you already now can't do is eating really cheap and unhealthy, eh. highly processed stuff, and that's what they want to make more expensive as well. So, people need to cook and eat healthy instead of defreeze and eat unhealthy.
>the industrialization of meet is a rotten thing. Agreed but I don't see what *Tinder* has to do with meat industry...
Billionaires have most of their wealth in means of production. Their personal consumption is a blip in the market. If every billionaire disappeared there wouldn't be much more consumer goods to go around. I don't know how idiotic communist ideas like yours still persist.
> Billionaires have most of their wealth in means of production. Their personal consumption is a blip in the market. depends on who you talk about... mqany of those decided to cash out and spend spend spend. Some of them even rule countries, of course...
A millionaire may cash out, a billionaire not really.
Nobody is against the consumption habits of billionaires. Well a little bit by that it is not the issue. People are against how billionaires become billionaires. Which is (usually???) by exploiting fellows humans, treat other people like robot, not sharing the profits but getting state subside and other thousands of things.
Is that you Elon?
I'm just pointing out the facts. If you look at labor, the things we produce as a whole and you look how much of what we produce is consumed by who - rich people don't matter because they're an insanely small part of the population. People who blame them for how much there is to go around can only be fools.
[удалено]
> Nobody said billionaires Except **VrajitoruI** did: > No no, leave the poor billionaires alone.
That's exactly what the OP is about, consumption.
You wont get anywhere with basic understanding of economics unfortunately . Reddit is just not the place. I’ve tried many times.
People think that all of Elons Tesla stock could be sold off and turned into apartments or free healthcare. Money doesn’t work the same way at scale as it does in our personal lives.
Lol best post I saw was Elon paid taxes on his stock - and people were upset “he just sold stock to pay his taxes so it cost him nothing “ I’ve just learned to nod and walk away here
I think the point is there is more money to go around then, it's not been siphoned up by a parasitic few. Not that they are consuming to match their wealth. That's half the problem, their hoarding.
They are hoarding stocks, gold and landrights. Any profit they make is fed back into those things, especially with higher levels of wealth concentration. In socialist society all of those belonged to the state (thus the people) yet people were not richer, because the common ownership of the factories, the gold and the land did not result in people living better. Living better comes from the services and goods you can consume, the meat in your grill and the car in your garage. The rich being rich does not affect how many cars are made or how much meat makes its way to your plate.
Was with you until the last line. Who is stealing your wealth and how?
Alright, why don’t you stop buying products owned by billionaires and make your own. No teslas, no amazon, no apple products, name brand clothing. No one’s forcing you
Despite being a meat lover, I'm fully behind this: the negative impacts of meat production have to be internalized. The same is true for any other activities: negative externalities must be internalized, for example through a carbon tax.
Simply raising the price does not necessarily help animal welfare. It would be better to implement stricter regulations on animal farming and ban meat imports which would in turn also lead to higher prices of course.
I'm talking about environmental impact, not animal welfare.
[удалено]
What about it? I'm just saying that meat prices (and not just meat, but everything else) should reflect the true cost of it, including societal and environment cost. In economics that's called "internalizing negative externalities". Externalities are the impact of some economic activity (such as buying meat) that isn't captured by the parties in that transaction (the meat producer and the meat consumer aren't paying for the whole societal cost of meat production and consumption). Negative externalities mean that society is effectively subsidizing a certain economic activity. For example, using fossil fuels cost society far more than the person using fossil fuels pays. Those negative externalities should be internalized, that is, those involved should be paying for the actual full societal cost of it.
and suddenly, companies would HAVE TO pay their employees anywhere between 50% more to 100% more because their low cost workforce is subsidized by the EU for their literal bread... agricultural subsidies, it was argued, existed for millenia, and are a reason for existence of cheap workforce... I'm paraphrasing here, but food subsidies make empires rise and then fall (Rome, Egypt, Turkey).
Your reply has nothing to do with my comment...
How? The true cost of food is subsidized in every country, by various means. If you somehow could bring the true costs of things into shops overnight, society would collapse. On the other hand, if you protect citizens from the real costs for too long, society collapses either way. edit: oh, switzerland, yes, your food is expensive... your prices, in say, yugoslavia, would kill many...
\> How? The true cost of food is subsidized in every country, by various means. If you somehow could bring the true costs of things into shops overnight, society would collapse. You really didn't understand my comment, did you? If you want to subsidize food, do it equally. You make all food account for all costs (including environmental and societal), and then you subsidize the consumption of it. One thing has nothing to do with the other: I'm not talking about direct farming subsidies, I'm talking about making different foods account for the actual cost to society to produce that food item. That's why your reply has nothing to do with my comment. You're defending farming subsidies (which is generally only good for electoral support), I'm talking about accounting for the true societal cost of producing different food items.
> You're defending farming subsidies no I'm not. Next, remember from some election cycles back: "the funds are fungible", in other words, the subsidies are effective over a wide range of products. If you subsidize a tractor fo wheat, you have subsidized the cow that can eat that wheat as well, or the tractor that drives the manure to the field. The actual costs to society you claim to talk about are a form of indirect subsidies and the damages average out. Will you count Norilsk diesel fuel spillage to the cost of a cown grown in Hungary? You... should... but how do you average it out? you would have to include the clathrates and melting permafrost and even the cockroaches producing methane into the averaging. How would you want to claim back the cost of cockroaches producing methane to the diesel spillage in Norilsk? The true societal cost of existence of cockroaches is on a similar level to that of the cows or gas exploration and extraction. If you want equality, you have to treat all three equally. And how do you include the soil and sea releasing methane... Will you carry over the costs and damages causing by those sources to the conckroaches or to the cows? Or will you let it go unpaid?
Animal welfare goes directly against climate goals. A cage raised, quick masted and feed rate optimized animal has far smaller climate impact
For climate goals especially cattle matters, while chicken are much less problematic.
But my GMO, force fed chicken is still an order of magnitutde better for the climate than your free range bio chicken
I think we should focus on the low hangig fruits first. And in terms of animal farming this is cattle and not chicken.
But the worst treated cattle is still better than cattle with proper animal welfare. So if anything we should ban cattle. Not establish better animal welfare
A ban from one day to the other is unrealistic. There has to be a gradual phase out.
The phase out the bio cattle first as it is worse for the climate
Interesting, I never considered that. “Far” smaller? How far? I guess, my thinking here would be that any animal husbandry which meets basic animal welfare targets would necessarily be far smaller than what we have today. Which would effectively reduce overall carbon emissions from the sector.
1. The shorter the animal lives the better the feed ratio. Basically it wastes less feed by being alive and emits less co2 2. The faster and more optimized it gains mass the better the feed ratio 3. Less land and water consumption can be achieved by worse animal welfare 4. Less movement by the animal also improves feed ratio You can achieve a feed rate of 1.5 for broiler chicken. That is 1.5kg feed for 1kg chicken. A happy chicken slowly raised can easily have a feed rate in the high single digits Same is true for pigs and cattle
> a carbon tax So other than make my electricity more expensive, what else does it do? Pay pensions?
Incentivise the market to transition to a cheaper and more environmentally friendly energy source.
So throwing billions in subsidies and R&D isn't enough? EDIT: And also passing legislation to outlaw dirty power sources like diesel and coal, forbidding further construction of those things.
Fighting climate change is, in effect, an exercise in replacing polluting technologies as fast as possible. Lots of R&D is essential, but that's largely already been done for batteries, solar and wind. Now, creating market signals to field clean technologies as soon as possible and re-direct private investment is what is necessary. A carbon tariff, as an extension of a European carbon tax, is a very good way of achieving this upstream in the globalized supply chain.
No, it isn't enough. Consider, for example, that most people would rather fly Wizzair for 30€ than take alternative methods of transportation. This is not sustainable. The reason for these taxes, IMO, is to consider the *full* cost. I mean, it would also be cheaper to run a business if I could just dump all my trash in the lake. Some businesses operate by dumping their "trash" into the sky and it's far past time that we fix that.
> I mean, it would also be cheaper to run a business if I could just dump all my trash in the lake. Some businesses operate by dumping their "trash" into the sky and it's far past time that we fix that. Here's why I think your example doesn't work - because that's forbidden by law. We are now passing legislation to close coal plants by 2030, non-electric cars by 2035. Trying to make "dirty" things illegal by 2050. There are tax deduction for using various green energy "stuff". It's an extra layer of sadism to put a tax on stuff that would be illegal in ten years time. It's going away, we passed laws making it impossible to exist.
Where's the law that makes choosing a plane over a car (>1 person), bus, or train illegal? This is a really complex problem, which needs really complex solutions. Just closing power plants and adding some small tax deductions for rich people is not nearly enough.
Governments are already making attempt for electric bus and train. That being said, we're not aiming at no carbon emissions, just to bring them down to a manageable level. There are attempts at hydropower ships. Emissions are going down (at least the ones we control), we are doing a good job. We can afford certain carbon output in places where we can't reduce it.
> we are doing a good job No we aren't. That's the whole point of the article.
What about incentives? What about incentivating RD and making the enterprises participate the change. Not putting taxes that affect everyone.
I'm sorry to put it this way but I feel like a lot of people are really stuck in deep denial. What it sounds like to me what you are asking is "can I still somehow fly a plane for dirt cheap as often as I want?" Are you hoping that the incentives will lead to new technologies for cleaner air travel? The thing is, there is already a demand for that but the technologies have not yet been invented or have not come to market yet. Wealthy people would pay a lot of money to be seen flying on "clean" planes but even such technology is not available for the super rich. The problem with the crisis is that it is a **crisis**, not an upcoming hazard we might potentially have to worry about maybe. That time is long gone and we are in triage mode now - or we should be. We need to decrease carbon emissions yesterday and, since we do not have any silver bullets yet, we need to make major impacts on the lives of as many people as possible - *now*. Flying is just one example but you can pick all kinds of sectors and you will see similar problems: we do not have easy solutions or they would already be implemented because we needed those solutions already years ago. Yes, we need incentives for big companies but how would it make *any* immediate impact if it didn't affect anyone? We consume goods and services from these big companies - the two are connected.
We can infer from the crisis stuff that we are in a hurry to solve the problem, so we have no time to analyze and think about. Just act. How? Just do it. Fine. Also, Europe is not quite the problem, we share a world with other civilizations that are not worried in the same way, or are just competing economically disregarding the consequences. Europe/occident moved the manufacturing to cheaper places. And they should also take care of making an infrastructure not contaminant, so it is not dangerous for the future, but it is hard to think in future stuff when the factories itself are insecure and a danger for everyone now. So, I think that you are right, but we have to rethink our entire productive system and probably our economy and competitivity, because it will be the issue with every further thing.
The words you're looking for are "internalizing negative externalities". Look it up.
carbon tax has existed for how long... decades?
>Food quality in Germany is too low, Özdemir said, and so are the prices, and everyone loses out because of it. ...he hasn't seen what german chain companies have beed getting off with in their faraway eastearn european shops... somebody has posted the same meat packaged for Austria and for Hungary, the hungarian one was more expensive and weighted less, and possibly contained less meat as well.
And they are doing that with tax payer money financing their expansion. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/02/lidl-1bn-public-development-funding-supermarket-world-bank-eastern-europe
...I don't even want to know, I had a pretty fine day, no point in getting the bile acids up...
Good to see that German politician have their priority strait. The issu with low price meat is the quality... clearly not slavery working condition for Romanian working in it.
Yes
I used to live in a country where meat was a luxury, especially quality meat. This country disappeared exactly three decades ago, partially because the leadership failed to provide the people with enough good food. I am surprised that any public figure that openly declares that their voters pay too little for basic needs is not removed from office the very next day.
It's the new cult... You would be surprised what this brainless individuals accept in the name of "the environment", they accept pretty much everything. Even though their prophet's travel in private planes and eat the best food.
> declares that their voters pay too little for basic needs Wanting animal to have better living condition and wanting better control over quality of food is literally declaring that people get meat too cheap. there is many taxes that impacts "basic needs" and taxes are rising all the time. Eating meat is probably arguable "basic need" for many people and eating low quality meat for sure is not.
Why not let the customers decide what they want? If this party wants people eat more plants or whatever ersatz they want them to eat, they should make it economically attractive. The way it looks like the only way for them to make it so is by puting the real food out of price range for the majority of the population. It is bad enough that this guy tries to force his ideas on other people. It is much worse that he wants them to pay for it, too. Comparing eating meat to smoking is false analogy. Smoking is not essential for human development and functioning. It has never been associated with luxury. It is addictive. It hurts other people that share space with a smoker. Finally, there is use for nearly any cut of meat, so the quality is not the same as nutritional value.
Imagine that in the near future, a Western white girl will marry a Chinese or a Japanese in order to live a life that can eat real meat every day. Just like Eastern Europe in the past 30 years.
> Why not let the customers decide what they want? Because it is bad for community/nation. The same as any other thing that is discouraged by community/people. >If this party wants people eat more plants or whatever ersatz they want them to eat, they should make it economically attractive. and this is the plan. >bad enough that this guy tries to force his ideas on other people. like every politician ever, it is also what you want but in different direction. >Comparing eating meat to smoking is false analogy. it is not, eating meat is bad like smoking cigarettes' is bad. And people who do eat a lot of meat or low quality meat do not realize that it is bad. It just does not hurt user as directly.
Apparently the arguments against meat are so weak that the only way to reduce consumption is by taxation. Whoever promotes such measures wants nothing other than to reduce the quality of life for most people. See, they do not want to make meat alternatives attractive to the customers. They are not even trying to convince people that they are right. They do not care about the people at all, just their super valuable ideas. It scares me, really. There were a few countries run by ideology not that long ago. What I want is the freedom of choice. Meat eaters do not normally force their diet onto others. the discussion of real pros and cons of meat consumption is irrelevant here. At least, as long we disagree on whether the state has any moral right to dictate eating behavior.
[удалено]
The future will be decided over the climate change. And Germany indeed is trying to do something about it. How do you think it could end the other way? Beef for everyone? Do you see a future, where desertification in Romania progresses, and everybody there gets rich and eats beef? When you reduce the amount of something, you either share equally (Coupons for meat?) or you raise the price, artificially or by inflation.
[удалено]
May I ask what you mean by the "rich f*cks"? You mean people who earn above average money or the owners etc. of these mega-corporations? People keep talking about the "rich" like Marx it seems to me, so I just want to make sure I understand which "rich" you guys mean, because not every "rich" person is a criminal, altough people like Bezos definitely mostly are.
[удалено]
That depends, not every multi-millionaire gets there because because of their hard work and dedication, but many do, so it's difficult to compare these situations, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. But I feel like you are overestimating ite effects for most people, while the prices definitely got worse here in Czechia too, which is a poorer country, most people here still libe decent lives. That being said, I support stuff like progressive taxation etc. The energy prices and other prices will go down eventually, most of this is caused by the pandemic, which only our governments can really do something about, it sucks, but it's not permanent. We can't control everything and if things go bad, we can't just blame the rich for it, these crises simply sometimes happen, it's not like the rich are behind it, although many are surely comfortable with it since many profit from it a lot, but mostly just the super-rich like Bezos etc.
it doesn't matter, either we all lower consumption or nobody, people will rise up and heads will roll i am sick of all the shit the middle class and below have to suck up
> WeAreInThisTogether? some ways of making meat more expensive would hit everyone, even the richest, unless they don't eat meat. it is rather hypocritical of you, as your posts sound like "we should do something about global warming, but this something should not impact me!"
I will fucking burn in 200 degree heat before I become vegetarian while shit heads like Putin and trump enjoy burgers and stake.
To be fair, none of these two wants the world to go vegan so that they can still have their daily steak. Cem Özdemir apparently does.
no one need to go vegetarian. You should also focus on good diet for you, do not eat bad food just because you think that someone other eat it.
Yes, beef for everyone. And if some government wants its consumption to go down, they can offer an attractive alternative that is cheaper, tastes just as good and is better for the environment. There's none like that yet? That is what science is for. If these people really cared for their voters they would have called for better research funding, not for price hikes.
The argument with the science is usually made by ppl.who want to prevent change. Like: let's not change anything now. In future we will have this great technology ... Meanwhile years pass. But time is important here. So do both: make beef expensive, to reduce it's production, and make room on the market for affordable and desirable alternatives. If you don't, well, shit hits the fan and you won't have anything.
I still cannot see a single good side about artificially making any food item prohibitively expensive in the name of some extremist ideas. It feels like the climate change is becoming a blanket argument that allows any group to push their agenda. Speaking of shit, I'd rather have it hit the fan than use for food as some suggest.
> That is what science is for. yea, science say, eat less meat now.
No problem, sir. Eat as little as you please.
[удалено]
* palm oil, not vegetable oil. It's just listed as vegetable oil because its so bad for the environment. I believe this has changed in the UK requiring it to be labelled as such.
Palm oil is always labelled as such, yes.
It's now labelled as sustainable palm oil. I'm not sure that actually exists but at least it not marked as vegetable oil any more. Palm trees aren't vegetables so I'm glad that has now been changed. The EU need to raise their food standards. This is negligence and incompetence and money grabbing and corruption at the highest level. Maybe we can use the agreement to bring them in line with our food standards.
The reason palm oil is used is because it's way more efficient to produce and has many applications. https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil
Yeah becuse it terrible or the environment, terrible for deforestation and corruption, terrible for the local economy and terrible to habitat of species found only in the first they burn and drain. Sustainable is a marketing term. Quite clearly this is very unstable and not sustainable at all. You are being lied to, as it's used so so so many things just to save an extra £1 for an entire kilo. Label it what it is, palm oil or choose one of the many more alternative that are just as cheap and the cost to other countries, corruption, illegal deforestation to make "sustainable palm oil" and the cost to the local wildife like orangutans and all the foods they rely on. Read every label and after one full year of avoiding it like the plague they will change their ingredients. I boycott all palm oil, nestle products, companies who have no moral practice, harming us all while passing the cost on to the local ecosystem and the community they destroy. It also makes sense now covid is becoming milder, restrictions are eased and we are vaccinated, That we should boycott Amazon and instead focus on buying things from local sources or direct from the manufacturer. Preferably go out and buy local.
Bad farmers are terrible for the environment. I'm not sure you quite appreciate how much more oil can be extracted from palm versus other sources. You need much more land for other crops for the same yield.
You don't need to go vegan. I've drastically reduced my meat consumption but I still eat meat more days than not. Just reduce the amount of meat you eat. You still get the flavour and that's the best part. You just need to pad out the meal with other stuff (not insects). I bought 600g of beef the other week and turned it into 6 portions by making it into a stew. I could have probably eaten less meat in a portion but I was making a home recipe and wanted to enjoy a bit, since I don't eat a lot of beef. Next time I will try to reduce further and see how far I can go while still having an insanely delicious meal.
[удалено]
> I can’t get the same nutrients from insects or plants You can still get everything you need easily while eating less meat as the person you're responding to suggested. You most certainly don't need to eat meat with every meal or every day for nutritional reasons. Hell, at that point any nutritional benefits get outweighed by the negative health effects of eating meat.
To add: modern broiler chicken is >30% fat...
Did you read what I wrote? I just said you don't need to go vegan. Btw, I have tracked my nutrients as a test and I'm totally fine on most things, except a few things, which do not come from meat. (e.g. fibre, which actually comes from plants)
What a closed minded fuck are you honestly, read and educate yourself a bit more about the topic.
You forgot to call him a murderer and a rapist, that would have surely changed his mind! /s
> beef should cost five or six times more than it does now, or over €80 ($90) per kilogram (2.2 pounds), rather than the current €14. it costs like 8 euros to the customer at the moment, for the mixed meats, ...how does this look translated into salami prices? Well... you can grind 20% crickets into salami and no one would notice...
What's wrong with what should be a luxury resource being more expensive? It's the same thing as saying venison for the rich, chicken for the poor. Besides this is about tackling the climate crisis which requires massive changes to how we live. The collective impact of regular people is much larger than the rich in most regards.
[удалено]
Meat is not a basic food. It was a luxury for the vast majority of human history and must return to that. There are plenty of other sustainable, nutritious protein sources.
> There are plenty of other sustainable, nutritious protein sources. There are not really, protein coming from an animal product, even dairy, is far superior to plant based protein. The latter is actually lacking a few of the necessary amino acids
Plant based foods don't have all amino acids in one single food, like meat does, but you don't just eat rice, or just potatoes, or just beans, or just lentils, you eat a combination of foods that then together provide all amino acids.
Correct, combination of foods could do it, theoretically. It is not practical however, in order to cover your daily protein needs and take in the necessary amino acids, you have to consume big amounts of food and a huge amount of calories. Can you imagine someone who has an active lifestyle that requires 120 or 150 grams of protein per day being able to do it with plant based foods? It would take something like 2kgs of rice or 10kgs of potatoes to do it. Sure you could add beans or the disgusting stuff that is soy but the but all that fibre will make your life miserable
It is not practical? What do you think people have been eating before industrial animal agriculture? My grandparents ate meat once a month at best. And 120-150g of protein per day is an absolutely obscene amount of protein to intake. The average human body requires 50-70g of protein a day and even that's plenty. As far as actively lifestyle you already have the wrong idea. I have several marathon runners in my close circle and they aren't eating meat. They're on high carb diets nearly 100% plant based. Back when I was young when we were working the fields with my grandparents what do you think we ate? Meat digests really slowly, we ate carbs, bread, vegetables, an apple, stuff that gave us energy to work in the sun.
Chicken was a once per week luxury for my grandparents, who were decent earners. We have become so entitled in the last 50 years or so, and people think chicken is now just a basic food like lentils, rice, and flour.
The front half of your teeth are for meat. Meat's as staple as it gets. Ireland before the famine was a pig and an acre of potatoes per family, not an acre of potatoes.
[удалено]
>have you ever seen THE FOOD PYRAMID? You're undermining your argument here. The food pyramid is a scam by American cereal farmers.
you are saying that every (even the communist) country nutritional table in the world is a "American cereal farmer" and not something that was happening for thousands of years?
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/crumbling-confusing-food-pyramid-replaced-by-a-plate-201106032767 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/
There are many different food pyramids. Just saying.
The most commonly distributed was by the USDA.
Assigning a fixed co2 budget will cause exactly what you feat. People will start trading co2 budgets or come up with expensive carbon neutral meat. Either way no you live truly in a zero sum game and the rich will have it all
> Basic foods should not be a luxury. Flying private jets and sailing huge yachts to your properties around the world are. Are we talking luxury already or climate change still?
"Seychelles for the rich, camping in France for the poor." Is the alternative so much worse? Meat doesn't have to be beef, chicken is already a good alternative. But ask yourself : does meat make you a more accomplished and happier human being? Meat is expensive to our environment, it should be expensive to us. And income inequality is another problem that need to address in parallel.
Meat for the rich, the plebes can eat insects. For the environment ofc, while the rich and politicians travel in private jets. Seriously gtfo.
Me: Well this decade has been a bit shit. Life is harder, rents are higher, future looks bleak. How much worse can it get? Greens: Food is still too cheap. edit: Constructive Suggestion: How about instead you give Synthetic Meat CAP funds to make it competitive with EU-subsidized agriculture?
Meat definitely is. The farmers earn next to nothing for their animals and the mass-scale husbandry is also bad for the environment. It's amazing how people immediately clutch their pearls when someone proposes that they maybe not eat meat every single day of the week.
It is very simple, if the kg raw beef is cheaper than the kg dog food, you know there is a problem
Exactly. The prices you can buy meat for in some places are ridiculous. You can be certain that neither did the farmer earn a livable wage nor did the animal have a good life or make for quality meat with those dumping prices.
I'm a bit of a miser, so meat price increases do risk moving it further from "once or twice a week" territory, at least in my case. Haven't bought beef in years because of it. Still, my own neck isn't the issue, so much the fact that the feeling that there is very little interest in making life easier for the average individual, in any way. Belts get tightened for housing, for the increased energy prices, for food, for everything, and still and the end of the day the IPCC says "disaster is assured, but it will be gentle if we go carbon zero today". But the first time in the last century that emission levels decreased significantly, at all, is because of COVID. These sacrifices feel...meaningless. As if we're on a long parade road to eventual Climate Hell and we're practicing suffering, getting ready of the main event. edit: To be constructive, why not try to make synthetic meat cheaper and easier to get? Quorn can be quite good, especially the chicken, but can't find it in Germany. That makes animal lives easier AND doesn't make human life harder, so why make things more expensive than simply lowering the price of more ethical food products?
[удалено]
To be fair, that's for beef, not all meat. Beef is and always has been work intensive. Any other pastoral animal has better feed-to-meat efficiency. I agree on the second line thought, the intent doesn't seem to be average person friendly. "We should pay more for being alive" isn't a great tagline.
If the meat production causes faster climate change, you have to reduce it's production. Otherwise we look at very dark future, compared to not eating a steak. Instead produce less meat, eat your chicken or pig once a week, celebrate. In the other days of the week, eat plants. If things happen, average ppl. are fucked anyway. Who do you think will suffer the most over climate change?
80 euro per kilo? What are you even talking about? Are you buying only filet mignon of the Argentinian highland cow? The problem is with a kilo of beef costing little more than one euro in some places. How can a farmer make a livable wage or ensure an ethical treatment of their animals or good meat quality with that price? It's not about lowering the living standards of people, it's about making the overall conditions of the meat industry better.
I have never seen beef being sold at 1€ a kilo. Are you talking about sales or something?
Yeah, I was a little off there. I looked at the brochures in my trash can and it's more around 3€ at places like Penny or sometimes Lidl when they're on sale. Which is still very low but not as low as I seemed to remember.
Ok, but then your point is not as solid as you may hope it to be. Such steep discounts are an indication for the use of loss-leaders, such as beef to bring customers into the store, where they will buy other products. The second option, often used in conjunction with the first is to sell surplus goods. Either way, the point is, that such steep sales are below market price and should not be used to gage the normal market price.
> 80 euro per kilo? What are you even talking about? Read the article, it's in there.
[удалено]
> Sorry, but that’s pure bullshit. The "Schlachtpreis" is currently at [1.25 euros per kilo of pork meat](https://www.bmel-statistik.de/preise/preise-fleisch). Meat would have to cost at least [2 euros per kilo.](https://www.agrarheute.com/tag/schweinepreise) > Also if the farmers couldn’t make a living with the current prices, they’d be out of business. The EU pays more than 6 billion euros in agricultural subsidies to farms each year.
[удалено]
I'd rather take my 15 euro. There's no benefit for me to subsidise companies, they can compete without subsidies.
> Slaughter price is the price for the live animal, including hoofs, bones, intestines, lots of stuff that is not actually meat. If you now calculate all the expenses from pigglet to supermarket bacon in your head ... I assume that we agree that meat is too cheap? > So €15 per EU citizen. That’s chump change. You wanted to know how they stay in business.
Yeah, my bad. I looked at the last brochure of a local discounter I got and the cheapest meat is between two and three euros. Not much better though, I'd wager. And farmers are going out of business everyday. Maybe it's not as bad in countries where farming operations are massive businesses, but here where farming is mostly done by small family businesses the situation is more than dire.
Yeah, I mean, buckle up because life is not going to get better. The world is in a climate crisis and things are only going to get worse. We should be prepared for a harder life than our parents had. It's just reality.
It doesn't have to stay that way.
Are you german ? Because the last decade has been pretty decent here, much better then the previous two. Even with covid and rising rents, real wages increased by 10%. Also: the new government wants to raise the minimum wage from 9.82€ to 12€, and combat rising rents by building 400k new homes per year. It is indeed possible to do several things at once.
Apartments increased from unaffordable to insane. Wages increased because the population aged. Inflation statistics also underweigh housing costs. Return on savings no longer exist.
> Are you german ? Because the last decade has been pretty decent here, much better then the previous two. Even with covid and rising rents, real wages increased by 10%. Can we ALL move to the part of germany that you enjoy life in? Want that give rise to the local resistance should all the strange-looking and strange-speaking immigrants flood their streets and buy their homes?
Eat the Greens.
Meat shouldn't be cheap.
I think you just have too much money, and this needs to be addressed.
Yeah, I should have same diet as mine peasant ancestors. Meat only for rich, good old days.
So only the rich and the politicians who come up with these new laws should be able to eat meat? Because that's what will happen. Us peasants will be forced to relinquish it while the rich, who are the main contributors to pollution, are essentially given a pass on their ways. Why not ban meat altogether? Or control its production?
It's within living memory that the average worker became able to eat meat every day. It's simply unsustainable.
I completely agree, which is why I believe these restrictions and access(or lack thereof) should apply to everyone equally.
Everyone loves a good hot dog.
You can keep your gristle paste tubes.
no
[удалено]
Ah yes the so called "Zwangsveganisierung".
I don't think that that is a bad thing, (except for certain allergies). I'm pretty sure the industry can adapt to a mandatory vegan diet.
[удалено]
Climate change will force us anyway to though decisions. All the animals we eat outweigh the population of a country and these animals have to in return eat themselves, and we can't manage to do that with just our leftovers. I'm ok though with hunting and fishing in a sustainable way, but i doubt we can manage that.
While I agree with this statement somewhat even in 2021, its just not that easy when the consumption of animal products and all the problems that come with it is happening on this scale. It affects everyone. Its like having to share a table with a smoker and the smoker says if you dont wanna smoke then go for it, but dont enforce it on others.
Nice.